The Roots of Arab Outrage

The Roots of Arab Outrage

 

There are many reasons why demonstrators have taken up signs, flags and chants across the Arab world, but not all the reasons may be the same for each country. In this interview, the director of CNA’s International Affairs Group, Eric Thompson, Ph.D., who’s also an expert on the Arab world, talks about the roots of the outrage and what it means for the United States.

 

Eric Thompson: “I think what we’re seeing right now is a simultaneous expression of frustration with the status quo. Despite the absence of participatory electoral processes and the longevity of the regimes we see. There has been a long tradition of public protests and political activism in this part of the world. In the 1970’s and as early as three years ago we saw bread riots in Egypt. We saw massive public demonstrations in the early 1990’s demanding democracy in Algeria. We’ve seen massive demonstrations in the 2005 timeframe in Lebanon regarding what the nature of their government was going to be. And in 2008 we saw Shia protesting on the street in Kuwait. So this form of expression is not something new for the region.”

“I would not characterize this as contagion or the domino effect, but I would say there is a strong degree of inspiration; inspiration regarding a particularly successful tactic, in this case, the large scale, rapid organization of peaceful protests. I think in Egypt, in Yemen, it’s about purging the regime from control, that is, getting rid of the old guard. In Bahrain they’re asking for something different through these public protests. First it was about getting rid of the prime minister and it seems to have evolved over time to calling for constitutional reform. We see protests on the street now in Iraq and that’s about purging corruption from the regime and getting more social services and more effectiveness from their governance. And in Jordan it was about frustration with the old guard and simply calling for a change in the cabinet officials. So, it’s a common tactic. People are inspired by what works and what’s effective in getting the government’s attention, but they’re really asking for different kinds of things from their governments.”

“What we’ve seen in the initial response in most of these cases comes from police forces and other internal security forces. And, unfortunately, in several cases, in Egypt, in Yemen and in Bahrain, these forces have been willing to use violence against unarmed protestors. When we’ve seen the militaries get involved, we get a different kind of response. And in some ways it’s a good news story for the United States and a good news story for the people when these large militaries who have been working for a long period of time with the United States, are brought into these circumstances. For example, in Egypt, in Jordan and in Bahrain we have seen restraint by the professional militaries in these countries. Now it’s unclear whether that restraint has come from choices made by the political leaders or choices made by the military leaders. But the outcome is in these cases where we work closely with them, the militaries have remained cogent and unified and they have not been prone to use violence as a response. In other cases, such as in Libya, we see the wanton use of violence by these militaries. And so, I think there is something to be said for a professional military that the people trust, using restraint, as being a fundamental determinant of these events.”